This change was coming long before Avatar. It merely proved to be the turning point where companies felt they could unload their existing plans onto the public. Unlike HDTV, which was created with no real content to back the product, 3D televisions and video games have been under development for some time. Avatar was just the right nudge with the public to help make the transition.

well we will just have to see how things turn out for films. Plus on the plus side films that dont go into production for like a yr or two maybe by then the 3d cameras will be cheaper to use so if they want to do film in 3d they have the option to actually shoot it in 3d. and i do feel bad for the folks who theaters/cities/towns dont have the option to see 2d or 3d of same film.

well we will just have to see how things turn out for films. Plus on the plus side films that dont go into production for like a yr or two maybe by then the 3d cameras will be cheaper to use so if they want to do film in 3d they have the option to actually shoot it in 3d. and i do feel bad for the folks who theaters/cities/towns dont have the option to see 2d or 3d of same film.

1. why would the cameras get cheaper? they are build.
2. the cameras are not expensive.

i was just pointing out the difference of 2d hd cameras to 3d hd cameras are that the 3d ones probably do cost a bit more presently compared to 2d cameras. So that could possibly be a factor in on production costs and the total production value for said films.

Collider: I was curious if you could talk about IMAX and 3D? These are both things that are…you really pioneered what IMAX could do with “Dark Knight” and 3D seems to be a revolution and it’s changing everything. Could you talk about your feelings about 3D and also with IMAX, did you shoot any of “Inception” in IMAX or was it all done in post?

Nolan: We shot the film with a mixture of mostly the predominant bulk of the film is anamorphic 35mm, which is the best quality sort of practical format to shoot on by far. We shot key sequences on 65mm, 5 perf not 15 perf, and we shot VistaVision on certain other sequences. So we’ve got a negative - a set of negative - that’s of the highest possible quality except IMAX. We didn’t feel that we were going to be able to shoot in IMAX because of the size of the cameras because this film given that it deals with a potentially surreal area, the nature of dreams and so forth, I wanted it to be as realistic as possible. Not be bound by the scale of those IMAX cameras, even though I love the format dearly. So we went to the next best thing which was 65mm. So we have the highest quality image of any film that’s being made and that allows us to reformat the film for any distribution form that we’d like to put it in. We’re definitely going to do an IMAX release. We’re excited about doing that and using our original negative 65mm photography to maximize the effect of that release. 3D I think is an interesting development in movies or the resurgence of 3D. It’s something we’re looking at and watching. There are certain limitations of shooting in 3D. You have to shoot on video, which I’m not a fan of. I like shooting on film. And so then you’re looking at post-conversion processes which are moving forward in very exciting ways. So really, for me, production of a large scale film is all about recording the best, highest quality image possible so that you can then put it in any theatre in the best way possible. And 65mm film, IMAX film, VistaVision, 35mm, that’s the way you do that.

the point of the Fusion 3D cameras was that a grown man can have the camera on hes shoulder and make a movie. the camera is not heavy.

i even think that the IMAX cameras are more bulky.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willi Berg

Okay. Wonder what Bay was complaining about though.

I think the camera is still in it's development stages . While it is true that Fusion Camera system developed by Pace and Cameron is contiuining to be refined , it's not something that needs to be tailored made for each movie. I think with normal cameras , there needs to be slight adjusments such as lenes being changed etc. OTherwise it pretty much comes down to putting film into the camera and shoot the sequences. Not only that but the 3-d cameras have a problem shooting at higher framerates. For Tron Legacy Kosinski and co. used a different HD digital camera called te Phantom Camera to shoot scenes at 1000 frames per second.

Bay style of shooting is very hectic and he typically uses 3-4 camera shooting the same scene , all filming at different speeds and angles. THe Fusion Camer system would have to be refined to all those specifics which is what i think Bay is referring to. If you've seen the behind-the-scenes footage of Bay's movie you'll see that even though he plans his sequences ahead , he's improvising when he's on set choosing angles as looks at the shots that are about to be filmed.So while he would've planned maybe 3 camera set ups early on , he could easily do another 2 set ups on the spot . Because Bay works with his own team , the guys pretty much know what kind of cameras he needs . To film Bay's movies with the Fusion Camera would have to mean that the camera would have to a kind of all purpose camera.

I posted the entire article in the Inception thread but yeah , interesting for Nolan to say this. He is looking at the conversion techniques as a win-win scenario. Creating something in 3-d without the loss of resolution you'd otherwise get with shooting something on film.

Nolan admits as much to Collider, saying that he “didn’t feel that we were going to be able to shoot in IMAX because of the size of the cameras because this film given that it deals with a potentially surreal area, the nature of dreams and so forth, I wanted it to be as realistic as possible. Not be bound by the scale of those IMAX cameras, even though I love the format dearly.” He then went on to reveal that they “went to the next best thing” … “a set of negative - that’s of the highest possible quality except IMAX.”

They shot the majority of the film using anamorphic 35mm, but Nolan says they “shot key sequences on 65mm” with “5 perf not 15 perf,” and they “shot VistaVision on certain other sequences.” For those of you who aren’t film tech geeks, this is a significant difference: 65mm 5 perf gives you 4.2 times the available image area behind the lens compared to regular four perf 35mm. Go check out the 1992 documentary Baraka to see what 65mm 5 perf can look like. The result is very vivid, practically no grain. In IMAX the film should look amazing.

So really, for me, production of a large scale film is all about recording the best, highest quality image possible so that you can then put it in any theatre in the best way possible. And 65mm film, IMAX film, VistaVision, 35mm, that’s the way you do that.

I'd much sooner take this for Superman, or any live-action, CGI Animation-light film, over last minute 3D conversion

i dont think he doesnt like the depth. he just likes working with ''film'' . digital is something that a lot of directors dont want to use.

directors who worked their whole live with film wont just chagne their mind and start using digital. Cameron didnt do a 180 in 1 year. he used digital cameras for years when he was doing documentary's. the same with Mann. its different with the director of Tron Legacy because this is hes first movie. he doesnt know anything else.

just dont force Nolan with 3D. the worst part is that at the end hes Batman 3 will be in 3D and 90% of theater showing will be in 3D. so if the studio f.... up the conversion it will not end very good for hes movie. of course the Nolan defenders will scream that he is a god and that he will invent a new technology for addnig depth.

Honestly, I don't think the general audience will notice a difference between post process conversion and filming with a 3D camera. If it wasn't such a buzz term and a media focus right now, nobody would even be aware that there was some alternative processing method. I think people will enjoy the experience either way. We are forum goers after all. We are the nerdy types who spend our time scrutinizing everything with our laundry list of factoids. For the general public, there is only 3D or 2D (or iMax).

well its nice to see what he thinks of it. with that statement it does look like he will probably want to shoot batman 3 and with who ever it is on superman reboot to shoot in 2d hd and post work. I do wish the best of luck with the tech for both to get better and better in the coming years.

I would be all for 3D if it was just certain points of 3D peppered throughout the film. I don't want every single action scene in the film to be in 3D. It's different for Green Lantern because of the powers/effects coming from the ring. Using 3D in the Superman reboot at certain times in action scenes to make effects more realistic would be awesome.

__________________"You are part of the night, just like me. We're not afraid of the dark--we come alive in it...we're thrilled by it."-Catwoman to Batman

They tried that with Superman Returns at the iMAX. That didn't turn out so well. I am not saying that that movie is the reason why it no longer happens, but I am sure it served as an example to Warner Bros and studios alike that you are better off doing full 3D rather than partial.

With more and morefull 3-d movies coming out , i think it would be a bad move to release a superman movie with only select 3-d scenes.
Audiences would complain about them paying full price for something that isn't 3-d. It isn;t a case of good 3-d vs bad 3-d but a case of 3-d or no 3-d.
People would get pissed as well as theater owners who would have to lower prices because not having everyting is in 3-d.

Honestly, I don't think the general audience will notice a difference between post process conversion and filming with a 3D camera. If it wasn't such a buzz term and a media focus right now, nobody would even be aware that there was some alternative processing method. I think people will enjoy the experience either way. We are forum goers after all. We are the nerdy types who spend our time scrutinizing everything with our laundry list of factoids. For the general public, there is only 3D or 2D (or iMax).

stop insulting my eyes.

i saw Alice in 3D. it was not the end of the world but the difference was obvious.

well its nice to see what he thinks of it. with that statement it does look like he will probably want to shoot batman 3 and with who ever it is on superman reboot to shoot in 2d hd and post work. I do wish the best of luck with the tech for both to get better and better in the coming years.

why does everyone think that Nolan will force the director to everything that he wants for hes movies?

yea i wouldnt mind if it was just select scenes like certain movies have done in the past few yrs. But since its the whole film in 3d or most of the film in 3d these days. It will more then likely be full on 3d. As for it being shot in 3d or done in post only time will tell with these future dc films.

Cameron is skeptical of conversions yet he is converting Titanic himself into 3D. His problem lies more with the studios making these decisions and not the directors.

Quote:

March 24, 2010 - Having spoken out against the recent trend of 3D conversions of 2D films, what does James Cameron have to say about converting his own film, Titanic, into 3D for re-release in theaters? In an interview at an event to promote the April 22 release of Avatar on DVD and Blu-ray, Cameron explained the distinction between taking the initiative as a filmmaker and having the studio dictate the conversion.

"We're converting Titanic, but we're doing it right," Cameron said. "What I'm not a fan of is a rushed or slapdash conversion that's not done right. And, I'm certainly not a fan of conversion when you could shoot the movie in 3D."

The problem, he said, is when the decision is made by the studio and not by the directors themselves.

"Right now, they're being made by studios because all the filmmakers hung back and said, 'Well, let's go see if Cameron hangs himself. Then we can forget about this 3D thing, and roll over and go back to sleep.' That didn't happen, so now they've gotta go, 'Oh, (expletive), maybe I have to think about doing a movie in 3D,' as opposed to what should have happened. They should have been pounding on the gates of the studios, saying, 'We want to make movies in 3D. It looks cool. It's a new art form. Let's go. Give us the money.' That didn't happen, so now they're paying the price, which is the studio telling them to make their movies in 3D and they're caught with their pants down."

Cameron went on to further excoriate his fellow filmmakers: "They're not standing up. It's like, 'Come on! Show some spine, guys.' The studios have the power. They're going, 'You're doing your movie in 3D. Guess what? You don't have a choice. You don't want to do it? That's fine. We'll get someone else.' That's not how it was supposed to be. But, if the filmmakers take control of this thing, like they should, and like they control any other aesthetic aspect of their movie, then you'll have the quality and people will spend the money."

Cameron also assured fans that he will personally oversee the Titanic conversion in parallel with his next project (which he wouldn't reveal). The target release date is currently Spring 2012, to coincide with the 100-year anniversary of the sailing of the Titanic, "a nice marketing hook."